Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)

Citation: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Parent Document: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551132/blinkoff-v-commission-on-human-... ↗

Full Text

893 chars

On appeal, the plaintiff renews her claims for damages from lost sales and fees paid to Rybak and Evans. We address each in turn. First, because we conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the referee’s finding that no retaliatory boycott occurred, her claim of lost sales caused by the alleged boycott logically must fail. Second, the plaintiff incorrectly asserts that the referee declined to consider the Rybak invoice because of the manner in which she marked the exhibit. As he articulated in the decision on reconsideration, the referee did not reject the exhibit but, rather, he concluded that it was irrelevant because the Rybak fees would have been incurred regardless of the retaliatory delay of her permit hearing. Consequently, because the referee reasonably determined that these fees were not incurred as the result of the city’s action, this claim also must fail.

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text